Apple and foursquare, sitting in a tree?

A WSJ report suggests the two are in "early discussions" for Maps integration.

Apple's Eddy Cue checking into Apple's HQ via Foursquare. Who knew this would be so exciting on the Internet?

Apple is reportedly looking to improve its own version of Maps by integrating data from social check-in service Foursquare. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, Apple Internet head Eddy Cue has been involved in talks with Foursquare in New York, though the discussions are still said to be in the early stages.

The Journal didn't offer details on what kind of Foursquare services Apple might want to integrate with Maps, but Foursquare devotees often use it to tell friends where they are, find new people nearby, or take advantage of check-in related deals and coupons. There are a number of other services that allow users to "check in" to a location online as well, including Facebook and Yelp, but Foursquare has long been a frontrunner in this space (R.I.P. Brightkite). One of Foursquare's strengths is that its large user base has helped it gather plenty of high-quality business listings as well as user tips and data on which businesses are seeing the most foot traffic, as noted by the WSJ.

But should we expect to see Foursquare-style check-ins coming to iOS 6 Maps anytime soon? Probably not in the near future, but it's possible they may come to the next major release of iOS or Maps. One of the better features of Apple's Maps is that it uses business listings and reviews from Yelp; combining those business listings with data from Foursquare could make the app more useful—but possibly only for a certain over-connected segment of the population.

One amusing line at the end of the Journal's piece: "Speculation about a possible deal between the two companies heated up last week after Mr. Cue reportedly posted a check-in on the service to Twitter." Indeed, Cue made his first public foursquare check-in last week at Apple's headquarters in Cupertino, with another the next day at Madison Square Garden in New York.

I've actually been using Foursquare to find places rather than the Maps app. They have a really comprehensive and generally accurate database of locations. Something tells me that's what Apple might be using... and I don't see how that requires anyone to be "over connected".

PS You missed the gamification and location history use cases of Foursquare.

I've actually been using Foursquare to find places rather than the Maps app. They have a really comprehensive and generally accurate database of locations. Something tells me that's what Apple might be using... and I don't see how that requires anyone to be "over connected".

PS You missed the gamification and location history use cases of Foursquare.

This does not fix the issues at hand though - adding more POIs from yet another database is likely to only cause more issues. If you notice Google took quite a bit of time before integrating zagat POIs in the google maps database, reason being there is a lot of data cleanup that needs to happen for these things to work properly. Because Apple is not buying foursquare makes this even more interesting because the data quality/controls are not in Apple's hands.

My guess is they would allow check-ins via maps, and not use it to better populate the POI db in Apple Maps.

I've actually been using Foursquare to find places rather than the Maps app. They have a really comprehensive and generally accurate database of locations. Something tells me that's what Apple might be using... and I don't see how that requires anyone to be "over connected".

PS You missed the gamification and location history use cases of Foursquare.

This does not fix the issues at hand though - adding more POIs from yet another database is likely to only cause more issues. If you notice Google took quite a bit of time before integrating zagat POIs in the google maps database, reason being there is a lot of data cleanup that needs to happen for these things to work properly. Because Apple is not buying foursquare makes this even more interesting because the data quality/controls are not in Apple's hands.

My guess is they would allow check-ins via maps, and not use it to better populate the POI db in Apple Maps.

This could be a great partnership...until Apple and Foursquare develop a Big Huge Fight, break up, and Apple builds out their best attempt of the same service in-house that leaves people disappointed...

I'm only speculating but this is unlikely to help Apple Maps much. Here is my speculation as to the real problem...

Apple tried to speed up the process of buliding a geo-database by purchasing access to a number of different data sources. Then they used their own software to combine them into one, either as a one-shot integration or as an ongoing linkage. Either way, I suspect they have tried to come up with algorithms to merge geo-databases on a scale that has not been attempted before.

That is the only rational explanation for the mistakes that Apple Maps has been showing. Apparently random in pattern, and evidencing themselves as mistakes not present in the parent data, which is why Tom-tom tried to distance themselves a little bit from their customer.

The problem with this approach isn't that data provider A is wrong or data provider B is wrong when a conflict occurs.The issues are that when provider A and provider B differ, which one is right? Do you fix the conflict locally or by getting the apparently incorrect source to fix their data? And what effect is solving that partuicular conflict (assumiming it is done algorithmically) going to have on the say, 200,000 or 200,000,000 other points of intersecting data between provider A and provider B?

The above also explains the apparent delays in fixes originating from crowd-sourced data.

If I'm correct, we won't know for a while whether Apple will be able to fix it. My bet is that by the time they do, Apple Maps will have become irrelevant, but that is just my opinion.

Man I hope so. Yelp is simply awful. Locally, we have 2 hospitals, the smaller one owned by the larger one. The smaller one was listed 4 or 5 times with only one location being correct, and the larger one listed over a dozen times. I managed to get the smaller hospital listed once correctly, but only after I emailed them when they fumbled the corrections I submitted and "lost" the correct spot. As for the larger hospital.... it's still listed 4 times in 4 places despite submitting several corrections. I finally gave up.

Apple's Maps has that smaller hospital listed in 3 places also. I tried three times to submit corrections, and gave up after they alternately lost the correct location; dropped it off the map entirely; and eventually reverted to the 3 separate locations. I didn't even try with the larger hospital. I'm pretty disgusted with it all.

I'm only speculating but this is unlikely to help Apple Maps much. Here is my speculation as to the real problem...

Apple tried to speed up the process of buliding a geo-database by purchasing access to a number of different data sources. Then they used their own software to combine them into one, either as a one-shot integration or as an ongoing linkage. Either way, I suspect they have tried to come up with algorithms to merge geo-databases on a scale that has not been attempted before.

I'm highly confident they are at least using YP.com as one of their sources. I was cross-referencing a large number of incorrect listings for the local trauma center to see where they came from. All of the duplicates are off-campus properties owned by the hospital as outpatient, rehab, and other facilities and I got exact matches to the address and phone numbers on YP.com. That explains a lot. When you open up a physical phone book, in the yellow pages you'll find everything owned by the hospital listed under their name. That's all fine and dandy in that format, but when you are trying to actually navigate to "General County Hospital", it's impossible to weed out the correct location in the Maps app.

I'm highly confident they are at least using YP.com as one of their sources. I was cross-referencing a large number of incorrect listings for the local trauma center to see where they came from. All of the duplicates are off-campus properties owned by the hospital as outpatient, rehab, and other facilities and I got exact matches to the address and phone numbers on YP.com. That explains a lot. When you open up a physical phone book, in the yellow pages you'll find everything owned by the hospital listed under their name. That's all fine and dandy in that format, but when you are trying to actually navigate to "General County Hospital", it's impossible to weed out the correct location in the Maps app.

Well, that certainly is interesting, and illustrates on a micro scale the problems I think they are trying to solve on a macro scale. Not an easy row to hoe, to be sure.

The problem with this approach isn't that data provider A is wrong or data provider B is wrong when a conflict occurs.The issues are that when provider A and provider B differ, which one is right? Do you fix the conflict locally or by getting the apparently incorrect source to fix their data?

If I'd be a data provider that license its data to someone, I'd have a clause there that sharing this data with a third party, especially a competitor is "verboten."

That means you can't take all the differences and determine who is right and report the "errors" to the party in the wrong. I guess only option one (make local) private fixes over all sources is practical.

In addition, all the data you license is also available for license by competitors. So why would you make the dataset of you supplier better? You strive for a good methodology to derive and much improved dataset from merging two or more datasets and keep that advantage to yourself.

[quote="printing724" If I'm correct, we won't know for a while whether Apple will be able to fix it. My bet is that by the time they do, Apple Maps will have become irrelevant, but that is just my opinion.[/quote]

Oh don't be so melodramatic. It took MS four attempts before Windows took off. Facebook started as Harvard only, then Ivys only, then college only. The first few iterations of Apple TV were mostly floundering; and Safari has been through some rocky iterations. Have you recently used version 1.0 of iOS? NOT polished.

A far more realistic story is that Apple, behind the scenes, fixes one problem after another in Maps, (including, probably, releasing it as an OSX app) and in a year the only people who are complaining about it are the same die-hard whiners who complain about built-in batteries, non-expandable storage, and how hard it is to open an IMac --- in other words people who have never used a Mac or iPhone, and have no interest in buying one, but who feel their opinions are still, somehow, of interest to Apple and its users.

[...]in a year the only people who are complaining about it are the same die-hard whiners who complain about built-in batteries, non-expandable storage, and how hard it is to open an IMac --- in other words people who have never used a Mac or iPhone, and have no interest in buying one, but who feel their opinions are still, somehow, of interest to Apple and its users.

OT about those iMacs: You can use them and still complain. I'm a long-time Mac user (since the mid 90s PowerMacs) and also own an iPad as well as my second iPhone - but I won't be getting another iMac. When my current one lost its graphics card a few months back, I hated how I couldn't just keep the display and connect it to another computer. It was: Repair the graphics card or lose the whole setup.

Yes, I know, caveat emptor and all that. I'm not complaining about Apple, just saying I was slow in realizing an all-in-one is more expensive in the long run. I had the card fixed for now, but my next desktop will probably be a mini with a nice external display.

"But should we expect to see foursquare-style check-ins coming to iOS 6 Maps anytime soon? Probably not in the near future, but it's possible they may come to the next major release of iOS or Maps. One of the better features of Apple's Maps is that it uses business listings and reviews from Yelp; combining those business listings with data from foursquare could make the app more useful—but possibly only for a certain over-connected segment of the population."

No no. Foursquare is much more precise and complete that any other service (due to its huge user-base). I'm using Waze + Foursquare to find places with an amazing accuracy. Yelp is a complete joke here in Brazil.

So, integrating with Foursquare would bring precise business locations and user reviews and tips about the business to Apple Maps. No one really cares anymore about the dumb check-ins.